An Irish local government council has been forced to pay $100,000 in compensation to a sacked born-again Christian, who was discriminated against because of his religious views.

John McAteer was fired from his job after failing to comply when his South Tipperary County Council bosses told him to stop talking to the public and staff about his religious views.

Ireland"s Equality Tribunal ruled that McAteer had been discriminated against and awarded him $100,000 compensation.

The Irish Times reports that McAteer was dismissed after repeatedly failing to comply with senior staff members who told him to stop speaking about his faith to workers and members of the public during office hours.

McAteer told the tribunal that the tenets of his religion require him to speak to people about Jesus and share the Gospel with them.

He had worked as a civil engineer with Clonmel Borough Council from December 2007 until his dismissal in July 2010.

He was first informed by the council"s human resources officer that the council had received a complaint about his speaking about his faith in the office in April 2008.

McAteer was told not to talk about religion during the working day, including during his lunch break.

He said he found this particularly difficult as speaking to others about his faith was integral to the practice of his religion.

At a disciplinary meeting in June 2008 he was warned that if he continued to disregard instructions from senior management and share his faith with people during normal working hours he would be sacked.

He received a final written warning after another incident in August 2008.

McAteer was suspended without pay for two months in June 2009 and ordered to see a professional to help him with his compulsive behavior after he was spotted talking to a man outside a coffee shop about religion.

A year later the borough council manager informed McAteer that he was to be dismissed after speaking about Jesus to a contractor working at the council offices.

Lawyers for McAteer told the Tribunal that he was an evangelical Christian who sought to manifest his beliefs by sharing his faith with others. They said this type of practice constituted a fundamental tenet of his belief system.

They argued that McAteer was not facilitated in the practice of his beliefs by the council and that, as a result of practicing them, he was accused of gross misconduct.

The County Council claimed that McAteer was not dismissed because of his religious beliefs but because he continually failed to comply with the directions of senior members of the council.

The council also claimed declarations concerning human rights protect the right to hold a religious belief but that no right is absolute and unlimited.

Equality officer Marian Duffy noted that European charters on human rights and freedoms protect a right to manifest one"s religion and, therefore, the manifestation of religion is covered within the Employment Equality Acts.

The Irish Times reports that Duffy said she was satisfied the "treatment of the complainant and the monitoring of him by council staff directly related to his religious beliefs and the manifestation of these beliefs."

She added that the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.

Duffy added: "For these reasons, I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to his conditions of employment and dismissal."

She noted that McAteer has only succeeded in finding part-time work since his dismissal.

Given some of the legislation passed in the U.S. in recent years, in which the religious have actually made it illegal to hold any discussion about religion in the workplace, unless all involved choose to engage in the discussion, it's hilarious that they're now fighting for their supposed right to smear their religious doctrines on the unwilling and unsuspecting in the workplace.

I would point out that it's not "discrimination" unless it's applied unequally. If they were allowing Jewish employees and Muslim employees to annoy and offend potential customers or other employees, but not allowing a Christian to do the same, THEN it would be "discrimination". But as long as it's applied equally to followers of all religions (and atheists as well), then it's not discrimination in the least.

I recall an exchange where I worked, between myself and another atheist. We were having a discussion, not intending any offense to anyone, in regard to a Christian who was not present, and the foolishness of the absent person's beliefs. Unknown to us, the third party in the room who overheard us (my supervisor at the time), was also a Christian and said nothing at first, but took great offense. The next thing I knew she was digging through a policy manual and while red in the face and shaking from anger, began reading the department's policy against annoying co-workers with unwelcome comments in regard to religious beliefs. I stated that no one intended any offense, but that the policy would quickly be defeated in court, because it's discriminatory. It allows anyone to speak in any reasonable manner against one's favorite football team, the brand of car/truck they prefer, a particular diet, or any other topic, but isolates religions and offers them special protections, without justification. I later found out that she took the issue to the Commander, who explained to her that it was a "feel good policy" (I don't know that he used those words), and really didn't have any legal standing. He informed her that while sympathetic (he was a staunch Mormon), there was no action that could be taken.

However, that all changed a few years later when (during the most recent Bush administration), federal laws were passed which allows one to take civil action against another for engaging in discussion regarding religion, in which any religious person takes offense. The entire municipality was forced to undergo an 8-hour "Sensitivity Training" session on these new laws, which are absolute and blatant violations of the the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

The very fact that my former supervisor felt it would be appropriate to seek disciplinary action, demonstrates her inability to remain reasonable and thusly, to do her job in a rational manner. This again shows that the religious are often incapable of remaining reasonable, and not applying unfair biases when their religious beliefs are involved. It is wholly inappropriate for such people to hold supervisory positions, public teaching positions, or critical public office. If one believes in the equivalent of fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns, they should not be entrusted to hold positions of critical importance. However, it will require that society in general, mature a great deal, before this recognition might be applied.

So if religious nut-bags are now being slapped down for speaking out about their religions in the workplace, while at the very same time they're seeking and receiving legal precedence to disallow speaking against religion, it serves them right.

An Irish local government council has been forced to pay $100,000 in compensation to a sacked born-again Christian, who was discriminated against because of his religious views.

John McAteer was fired from his job after failing to comply when his South Tipperary County Council bosses told him to stop talking to the public and staff about his religious views.

Ireland"s Equality Tribunal ruled that McAteer had been discriminated against and awarded him $100,000 compensation.

The Irish Times reports that McAteer was dismissed after repeatedly failing to comply with senior staff members who told him to stop speaking about his faith to workers and members of the public during office hours.

McAteer told the tribunal that the tenets of his religion require him to speak to people about Jesus and share the Gospel with them.

He had worked as a civil engineer with Clonmel Borough Council from December 2007 until his dismissal in July 2010.

He was first informed by the council"s human resources officer that the council had received a complaint about his speaking about his faith in the office in April 2008.

McAteer was told not to talk about religion during the working day, including during his lunch break.

He said he found this particularly difficult as speaking to others about his faith was integral to the practice of his religion.

At a disciplinary meeting in June 2008 he was warned that if he continued to disregard instructions from senior management and share his faith with people during normal working hours he would be sacked.

He received a final written warning after another incident in August 2008.

McAteer was suspended without pay for two months in June 2009 and ordered to see a professional to help him with his compulsive behavior after he was spotted talking to a man outside a coffee shop about religion.

A year later the borough council manager informed McAteer that he was to be dismissed after speaking about Jesus to a contractor working at the council offices.

Lawyers for McAteer told the Tribunal that he was an evangelical Christian who sought to manifest his beliefs by sharing his faith with others. They said this type of practice constituted a fundamental tenet of his belief system.

They argued that McAteer was not facilitated in the practice of his beliefs by the council and that, as a result of practicing them, he was accused of gross misconduct.

The County Council claimed that McAteer was not dismissed because of his religious beliefs but because he continually failed to comply with the directions of senior members of the council.

The council also claimed declarations concerning human rights protect the right to hold a religious belief but that no right is absolute and unlimited.

Equality officer Marian Duffy noted that European charters on human rights and freedoms protect a right to manifest one"s religion and, therefore, the manifestation of religion is covered within the Employment Equality Acts.

The Irish Times reports that Duffy said she was satisfied the "treatment of the complainant and the monitoring of him by council staff directly related to his religious beliefs and the manifestation of these beliefs."

She added that the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.

Duffy added: "For these reasons, I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to his conditions of employment and dismissal."

She noted that McAteer has only succeeded in finding part-time work since his dismissal.

This is phucking disgusting. Replace his faith with belief that aliens are coming to "probe" all of us (equal evidence as gawd), and he would have been fired much sooner. People are afraid of offending religion/faith. There was no discrimination. The $100,000 penalty was $100,000 too much. No, an employee does NOT have the right to force his employer to accept whatever behavior they wish to display, in the name of faith. This is just sick.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

An Irish local government council has been forced to pay $100,000 in compensation to a sacked born-again Christian, who was discriminated against because of his religious views.

John McAteer was fired from his job after failing to comply when his South Tipperary County Council bosses told him to stop talking to the public and staff about his religious views.

Ireland"s Equality Tribunal ruled that McAteer had been discriminated against and awarded him $100,000 compensation.

The Irish Times reports that McAteer was dismissed after repeatedly failing to comply with senior staff members who told him to stop speaking about his faith to workers and members of the public during office hours.

McAteer told the tribunal that the tenets of his religion require him to speak to people about Jesus and share the Gospel with them.

He had worked as a civil engineer with Clonmel Borough Council from December 2007 until his dismissal in July 2010.

He was first informed by the council"s human resources officer that the council had received a complaint about his speaking about his faith in the office in April 2008.

McAteer was told not to talk about religion during the working day, including during his lunch break.

He said he found this particularly difficult as speaking to others about his faith was integral to the practice of his religion.

At a disciplinary meeting in June 2008 he was warned that if he continued to disregard instructions from senior management and share his faith with people during normal working hours he would be sacked.

He received a final written warning after another incident in August 2008.

McAteer was suspended without pay for two months in June 2009 and ordered to see a professional to help him with his compulsive behavior after he was spotted talking to a man outside a coffee shop about religion.

A year later the borough council manager informed McAteer that he was to be dismissed after speaking about Jesus to a contractor working at the council offices.

Lawyers for McAteer told the Tribunal that he was an evangelical Christian who sought to manifest his beliefs by sharing his faith with others. They said this type of practice constituted a fundamental tenet of his belief system.

They argued that McAteer was not facilitated in the practice of his beliefs by the council and that, as a result of practicing them, he was accused of gross misconduct.

The County Council claimed that McAteer was not dismissed because of his religious beliefs but because he continually failed to comply with the directions of senior members of the council.

The council also claimed declarations concerning human rights protect the right to hold a religious belief but that no right is absolute and unlimited.

Equality officer Marian Duffy noted that European charters on human rights and freedoms protect a right to manifest one"s religion and, therefore, the manifestation of religion is covered within the Employment Equality Acts.

The Irish Times reports that Duffy said she was satisfied the "treatment of the complainant and the monitoring of him by council staff directly related to his religious beliefs and the manifestation of these beliefs."

She added that the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.

Duffy added: "For these reasons, I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to his conditions of employment and dismissal."

She noted that McAteer has only succeeded in finding part-time work since his dismissal.

This is phucking disgusting. Replace his faith with belief that aliens are coming to "probe" all of us (equal evidence as gawd), and he would have been fired much sooner. People are afraid of offending religion/faith. There was no discrimination. The $100,000 penalty was $100,000 too much. No, an employee does NOT have the right to force his employer to accept whatever behavior they wish to display, in the name of faith. This is just sick.

What he said.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

I don't generally want to see any one get fired for expressing a view. (There might be exceptions). I mean if we taught basic critical and logic and debates skills to everyone the whole hello I know what God wants you to do and if you don't do it your going to hell argument isn't going to get much traction.

The impression I get is that its worse the other way around. How many jobs are out there were you have to sign off on some statement of faith ?

How many jobs are out there that if you express objections to various religious beliefs you will get fired.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

At 8/14/2014 7:13:27 PM, Beastt wrote:This is not religious discrimination.

Given some of the legislation passed in the U.S. in recent years, in which the religious have actually made it illegal to hold any discussion about religion in the workplace, unless all involved choose to engage in the discussion, it's hilarious that they're now fighting for their supposed right to smear their religious doctrines on the unwilling and unsuspecting in the workplace.

I would point out that it's not "discrimination" unless it's applied unequally.

But this is what the judge said, it forced those whose religion required them to evangelize to be more adversely affected by this work requirement.

If they were allowing Jewish employees and Muslim employees to annoy and offend potential customers or other employees, but not allowing a Christian to do the same, THEN it would be "discrimination". But as long as it's applied equally to followers of all religions (and atheists as well), then it's not discrimination in the least.

Could an atheist discussing his atheism be considered religious speech?

I recall an exchange where I worked, between myself and another atheist. We were having a discussion, not intending any offense to anyone, in regard to a Christian who was not present, and the foolishness of the absent person's beliefs. Unknown to us, the third party in the room who overheard us (my supervisor at the time), was also a Christian and said nothing at first, but took great offense. The next thing I knew she was digging through a policy manual and while red in the face and shaking from anger, began reading the department's policy against annoying co-workers with unwelcome comments in regard to religious beliefs. I stated that no one intended any offense, but that the policy would quickly be defeated in court, because it's discriminatory. It allows anyone to speak in any reasonable manner against one's favorite football team, the brand of car/truck they prefer, a particular diet, or any other topic, but isolates religions and offers them special protections, without justification. I later found out that she took the issue to the Commander, who explained to her that it was a "feel good policy" (I don't know that he used those words), and really didn't have any legal standing. He informed her that while sympathetic (he was a staunch Mormon), there was no action that could be taken.

However, that all changed a few years later when (during the most recent Bush administration), federal laws were passed which allows one to take civil action against another for engaging in discussion regarding religion, in which any religious person takes offense. The entire municipality was forced to undergo an 8-hour "Sensitivity Training" session on these new laws, which are absolute and blatant violations of the the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

The very fact that my former supervisor felt it would be appropriate to seek disciplinary action, demonstrates her inability to remain reasonable and thusly, to do her job in a rational manner. This again shows that the religious are often incapable of remaining reasonable, and not applying unfair biases when their religious beliefs are involved. It is wholly inappropriate for such people to hold supervisory positions, public teaching positions, or critical public office. If one believes in the equivalent of fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns, they should not be entrusted to hold positions of critical importance. However, it will require that society in general, mature a great deal, before this recognition might be applied.

Are you sure that belief in God is equivalent to belief in fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns?

So if religious nut-bags are now being slapped down for speaking out about their religions in the workplace, while at the very same time they're seeking and receiving legal precedence to disallow speaking against religion, it serves them right.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

This is phucking disgusting. Replace his faith with belief that aliens are coming to "probe" all of us (equal evidence as gawd), and he would have been fired much sooner. People are afraid of offending religion/faith. There was no discrimination.

Does not this work rule affect the religious in a discriminatory way?

The $100,000 penalty was $100,000 too much. No, an employee does NOT have the right to force his employer to accept whatever behavior they wish to display, in the name of faith. This is just sick.

How about wearable religious symbols, should those be allowed in the workplace?

At 8/14/2014 7:13:27 PM, Beastt wrote:This is not religious discrimination.

Given some of the legislation passed in the U.S. in recent years, in which the religious have actually made it illegal to hold any discussion about religion in the workplace, unless all involved choose to engage in the discussion, it's hilarious that they're now fighting for their supposed right to smear their religious doctrines on the unwilling and unsuspecting in the workplace.

I would point out that it's not "discrimination" unless it's applied unequally.

But this is what the judge said, it forced those whose religion required them to evangelize to be more adversely affected by this work requirement.

And suppose one subscribes to a religion which demands the sacrifice of kidnapped babies? Do we just cast aside personal rights, freedoms and regulations so as not to interfere with one's religious freedoms? When you accept a job, you accept the rules of that job, as long as they aren't violating the law or your Constitutional rights. And while you do have the right to a religion, you do not have the right to violate the law, or the rights of your employer, in exercising that religious freedom.

If they were allowing Jewish employees and Muslim employees to annoy and offend potential customers or other employees, but not allowing a Christian to do the same, THEN it would be "discrimination". But as long as it's applied equally to followers of all religions (and atheists as well), then it's not discrimination in the least.

Could an atheist discussing his atheism be considered religious speech?

It would be considered to be of a religious topic, and would certainly be subject to regulation by the employer. Suppose you owned and operated a retail store, and one of your employees was an atheist. Now suppose that employee greeted everyone at the door by saying, "Have you heard that Jesus is a myth?", and attempted to engage them in conversation on that topic. As the owner of that store, do you not have the right to prevent him from engaging in such behavior?

I recall an exchange where I worked, between myself and another atheist. We were having a discussion, not intending any offense to anyone, in regard to a Christian who was not present, and the foolishness of the absent person's beliefs. Unknown to us, the third party in the room who overheard us (my supervisor at the time), was also a Christian and said nothing at first, but took great offense. The next thing I knew she was digging through a policy manual and while red in the face and shaking from anger, began reading the department's policy against annoying co-workers with unwelcome comments in regard to religious beliefs. I stated that no one intended any offense, but that the policy would quickly be defeated in court, because it's discriminatory. It allows anyone to speak in any reasonable manner against one's favorite football team, the brand of car/truck they prefer, a particular diet, or any other topic, but isolates religions and offers them special protections, without justification. I later found out that she took the issue to the Commander, who explained to her that it was a "feel good policy" (I don't know that he used those words), and really didn't have any legal standing. He informed her that while sympathetic (he was a staunch Mormon), there was no action that could be taken.

However, that all changed a few years later when (during the most recent Bush administration), federal laws were passed which allows one to take civil action against another for engaging in discussion regarding religion, in which any religious person takes offense. The entire municipality was forced to undergo an 8-hour "Sensitivity Training" session on these new laws, which are absolute and blatant violations of the the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

The very fact that my former supervisor felt it would be appropriate to seek disciplinary action, demonstrates her inability to remain reasonable and thusly, to do her job in a rational manner. This again shows that the religious are often incapable of remaining reasonable, and not applying unfair biases when their religious beliefs are involved. It is wholly inappropriate for such people to hold supervisory positions, public teaching positions, or critical public office. If one believes in the equivalent of fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns, they should not be entrusted to hold positions of critical importance. However, it will require that society in general, mature a great deal, before this recognition might be applied.

Are you sure that belief in God is equivalent to belief in fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns?

Until someone can present objective evidence for the existence of God (or fairies, gremlins or Leprechauns), that's the situation as it stands.

So if religious nut-bags are now being slapped down for speaking out about their religions in the workplace, while at the very same time they're seeking and receiving legal precedence to disallow speaking against religion, it serves them right.

I don't generally want to see any one get fired for expressing a view. (There might be exceptions). I mean if we taught basic critical and logic and debates skills to everyone the whole hello I know what God wants you to do and if you don't do it your going to hell argument isn't going to get much traction.

So do you believe that in a world where all were taught critical and logical thinking, there would be close to 0% religion?

The impression I get is that its worse the other way around. How many jobs are out there were you have to sign off on some statement of faith ?

Other than jobs with churches or religious organizations, I know of none.

How many jobs are out there that if you express objections to various religious beliefs you will get fired.

Many I think. But in Hollywood and academia, one will get fired for expressing objections to various atheist beliefs. Do you find that equally odious?

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

Try this; go into a crowded movie theater, and then jump up and start yelling "Fire! Fire!". When the police arrive, tell them that you had a very strong faith that the building was on fire. See whether faith or disruption is seen as more important.

Faith is of zero importance and in a rational society, that's how it would be treated. It holds absolutely no veracity. Every year we see a number of nut-bags who have complete faith that the Earth will end at a certain time, or that they we "be taken" on a certain date (bornofgod, for one), and yet it never happens. Faith has a batting average less impressive than pure chance.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

I didn't make any judgments about importance.

No you didn't. But I assumed that you said they should have made the issue about disruption instead of faith because you thought disruption was the more important issue. Both issues were there in the case.

At 8/14/2014 7:13:27 PM, Beastt wrote:This is not religious discrimination.

Given some of the legislation passed in the U.S. in recent years, in which the religious have actually made it illegal to hold any discussion about religion in the workplace, unless all involved choose to engage in the discussion, it's hilarious that they're now fighting for their supposed right to smear their religious doctrines on the unwilling and unsuspecting in the workplace.

I would point out that it's not "discrimination" unless it's applied unequally. If they were allowing Jewish employees and Muslim employees to annoy and offend potential customers or other employees, but not allowing a Christian to do the same, THEN it would be "discrimination". But as long as it's applied equally to followers of all religions (and atheists as well), then it's not discrimination in the least.

I recall an exchange where I worked, between myself and another atheist. We were having a discussion, not intending any offense to anyone, in regard to a Christian who was not present, and the foolishness of the absent person's beliefs. Unknown to us, the third party in the room who overheard us (my supervisor at the time), was also a Christian and said nothing at first, but took great offense. The next thing I knew she was digging through a policy manual and while red in the face and shaking from anger, began reading the department's policy against annoying co-workers with unwelcome comments in regard to religious beliefs. I stated that no one intended any offense, but that the policy would quickly be defeated in court, because it's discriminatory. It allows anyone to speak in any reasonable manner against one's favorite football team, the brand of car/truck they prefer, a particular diet, or any other topic, but isolates religions and offers them special protections, without justification. I later found out that she took the issue to the Commander, who explained to her that it was a "feel good policy" (I don't know that he used those words), and really didn't have any legal standing. He informed her that while sympathetic (he was a staunch Mormon), there was no action that could be taken.

However, that all changed a few years later when (during the most recent Bush administration), federal laws were passed which allows one to take civil action against another for engaging in discussion regarding religion, in which any religious person takes offense. The entire municipality was forced to undergo an 8-hour "Sensitivity Training" session on these new laws, which are absolute and blatant violations of the the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

The very fact that my former supervisor felt it would be appropriate to seek disciplinary action, demonstrates her inability to remain reasonable and thusly, to do her job in a rational manner. This again shows that the religious are often incapable of remaining reasonable, and not applying unfair biases when their religious beliefs are involved. It is wholly inappropriate for such people to hold supervisory positions, public teaching positions, or critical public office. If one believes in the equivalent of fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns, they should not be entrusted to hold positions of critical importance. However, it will require that society in general, mature a great deal, before this recognition might be applied.

So if religious nut-bags are now being slapped down for speaking out about their religions in the workplace, while at the very same time they're seeking and receiving legal precedence to disallow speaking against religion, it serves them right.

I guarantee that if the people were reversed in that scenario you would be begging someone to fire the people involved. You're just a typical atheist hypocrite.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

I didn't make any judgments about importance.

No you didn't. But I assumed that you said they should have made the issue about disruption instead of faith because you thought disruption was the more important issue. Both issues were there in the case.

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

At 8/14/2014 7:13:27 PM, Beastt wrote:This is not religious discrimination.

Given some of the legislation passed in the U.S. in recent years, in which the religious have actually made it illegal to hold any discussion about religion in the workplace, unless all involved choose to engage in the discussion, it's hilarious that they're now fighting for their supposed right to smear their religious doctrines on the unwilling and unsuspecting in the workplace.

I would point out that it's not "discrimination" unless it's applied unequally.

But this is what the judge said, it forced those whose religion required them to evangelize to be more adversely affected by this work requirement.

And suppose one subscribes to a religion which demands the sacrifice of kidnapped babies? Do we just cast aside personal rights, freedoms and regulations so as not to interfere with one's religious freedoms? When you accept a job, you accept the rules of that job, as long as they aren't violating the law or your Constitutional rights. And while you do have the right to a religion, you do not have the right to violate the law, or the rights of your employer, in exercising that religious freedom.

I fully agree, but I think the trouble is in determining where the line is. Why can't each person engage or decline conversations as they wish, instead of a blanket law?

If they were allowing Jewish employees and Muslim employees to annoy and offend potential customers or other employees, but not allowing a Christian to do the same, THEN it would be "discrimination". But as long as it's applied equally to followers of all religions (and atheists as well), then it's not discrimination in the least.

Could an atheist discussing his atheism be considered religious speech?

It would be considered to be of a religious topic, and would certainly be subject to regulation by the employer.

Ok, I didn't expect you to take that position. Balanced.

Suppose you owned and operated a retail store, and one of your employees was an atheist. Now suppose that employee greeted everyone at the door by saying, "Have you heard that Jesus is a myth?", and attempted to engage them in conversation on that topic. As the owner of that store, do you not have the right to prevent him from engaging in such behavior?

I would fire him so fast it'd make his head spin.

I recall an exchange where I worked, between myself and another atheist. We were having a discussion, not intending any offense to anyone, in regard to a Christian who was not present, and the foolishness of the absent person's beliefs. Unknown to us, the third party in the room who overheard us (my supervisor at the time), was also a Christian and said nothing at first, but took great offense. The next thing I knew she was digging through a policy manual and while red in the face and shaking from anger, began reading the department's policy against annoying co-workers with unwelcome comments in regard to religious beliefs. I stated that no one intended any offense, but that the policy would quickly be defeated in court, because it's discriminatory. It allows anyone to speak in any reasonable manner against one's favorite football team, the brand of car/truck they prefer, a particular diet, or any other topic, but isolates religions and offers them special protections, without justification. I later found out that she took the issue to the Commander, who explained to her that it was a "feel good policy" (I don't know that he used those words), and really didn't have any legal standing. He informed her that while sympathetic (he was a staunch Mormon), there was no action that could be taken.

However, that all changed a few years later when (during the most recent Bush administration), federal laws were passed which allows one to take civil action against another for engaging in discussion regarding religion, in which any religious person takes offense. The entire municipality was forced to undergo an 8-hour "Sensitivity Training" session on these new laws, which are absolute and blatant violations of the the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

The very fact that my former supervisor felt it would be appropriate to seek disciplinary action, demonstrates her inability to remain reasonable and thusly, to do her job in a rational manner.

But you were engaging in religious speech. The reason why another person finds it offensive is immaterial. I can fully see the situation being reversed where an atheist overhears two Christians and becomes "offended" enough to report it. Would that atheist be behaving unreasonably? Would it also be bias?

This again shows that the religious are often incapable of remaining reasonable, and not applying unfair biases when their religious beliefs are involved. It is wholly inappropriate for such people to hold supervisory positions, public teaching positions, or critical public office. If one believes in the equivalent of fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns, they should not be entrusted to hold positions of critical importance. However, it will require that society in general, mature a great deal, before this recognition might be applied.

Are you sure that belief in God is equivalent to belief in fairies, gremlins and Leprechauns?

Until someone can present objective evidence for the existence of God (or fairies, gremlins or Leprechauns), that's the situation as it stands.

When you say you believe that all claims currently with no objective evidence are equivalent, do you mean they are,

If 3., what does that observation mean? Are you making a judgment on whether they are true, or simply pointing out a shared similarity?

So if religious nut-bags are now being slapped down for speaking out about their religions in the workplace, while at the very same time they're seeking and receiving legal precedence to disallow speaking against religion, it serves them right.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

Try this; go into a crowded movie theater, and then jump up and start yelling "Fire! Fire!". When the police arrive, tell them that you had a very strong faith that the building was on fire. See whether faith or disruption is seen as more important.

If a person truly believed the building was on fire, his intent would not be malicious, and would deserve lighter punishment. But I agree there may be times when disruption would outweigh faith.

Faith is of zero importance and in a rational society, that's how it would be treated. It holds absolutely no veracity. Every year we see a number of nut-bags who have complete faith that the Earth will end at a certain time, or that they we "be taken" on a certain date (bornofgod, for one), and yet it never happens. Faith has a batting average less impressive than pure chance.

So why should it receive any importance at all?

Well, right now, because it is protected by the constitution. Would you approve of a law outlawing religion?

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

I didn't make any judgments about importance.

No you didn't. But I assumed that you said they should have made the issue about disruption instead of faith because you thought disruption was the more important issue. Both issues were there in the case.

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

The judge saw it differently. He/She thought the "disruption" was an issue only because of the discriminatory workplace law. What are the chances that the judge is a Christian and unknowingly biased? Seeing what would happen in an appeal would be interesting.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

It's not a matter of importance, it's a matter of legality.

What do you mean?

I'm no scholar of Irish Constitutional law, however if it is similar to American law on the matter, there is legal precident for firing someone over causing a disruption of the workplace, or harming the work experience of others.

There is no legal precedent for preventing someone from practicing their religious behaviors.

Had the organization cited the disruption, rather than the religion, they likely would have won the suit.

At 8/14/2014 1:44:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:Religious freedom doesn't permit one to be disruptive. If my religion demanded I be naked, an employer would be within its bounds and rights to fire me or not hire me based on that.

The mistake they made was making the issue about faith and not about the disruption.

But why should faith be of less importance than disruption?

I didn't make any judgments about importance.

No you didn't. But I assumed that you said they should have made the issue about disruption instead of faith because you thought disruption was the more important issue. Both issues were there in the case.

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

The judge saw it differently. He/She thought the "disruption" was an issue only because of the discriminatory workplace law. What are the chances that the judge is a Christian and unknowingly biased? Seeing what would happen in an appeal would be interesting.

Huh? What are you talking about? They never talked about the disruption as a disruption. That's my point.

The company made it about the faith content and, thus, the judged ruled on that as discriminatory.

They shouldn't have done that. It should have been "You are causing a disruption in the workplace." Not, "You can't spread messages of faith"

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

What is at issue is where an employee is allowed to express protected religious beliefs. They banned it entirely - therein lies the rub. That included lunch hour. That included coffee shops ... across the street. That included talking with people who might have inquired about 'Jesus'. That included apparently rebutting atheists how besmirched 'Jesus'. THAT was the issue here.

They could have banned him from talking about religion with people who complained, correct?

They could have confined the 'evangelical' talk to lunch hours.

They could have allowed him to set up a place in work to speak with those who wished it (allowing others who did not want to listen to skip).

Instead, they banned it entirely. In doing so, the violated protections of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Of course, when the situation is reversed? Atheists are the first to scream foul!

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

What is at issue is where an employee is allowed to express protected religious beliefs. They banned it entirely - therein lies the rub. That included lunch hour. That included coffee shops ... across the street. That included talking with people who might have inquired about 'Jesus'. That included apparently rebutting atheists how besmirched 'Jesus'. THAT was the issue here.

Yeah, and it shouldn't have been. It should have been the disruption regardless of content.

They could have banned him from talking about religion with people who complained, correct?

They could have confined the 'evangelical' talk to lunch hours.

They could have allowed him to set up a place in work to speak with those who wished it (allowing others who did not want to listen to skip).

Instead, they banned it entirely. In doing so, the violated protections of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Of course, when the situation is reversed? Atheists are the first to scream foul!

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

What is at issue is where an employee is allowed to express protected religious beliefs. They banned it entirely - therein lies the rub. That included lunch hour. That included coffee shops ... across the street. That included talking with people who might have inquired about 'Jesus'. That included apparently rebutting atheists how besmirched 'Jesus'. THAT was the issue here.

Yeah, and it shouldn't have been. It should have been the disruption regardless of content.

They could have banned him from talking about religion with people who complained, correct?

They could have confined the 'evangelical' talk to lunch hours.

They could have allowed him to set up a place in work to speak with those who wished it (allowing others who did not want to listen to skip).

Instead, they banned it entirely. In doing so, the violated protections of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Of course, when the situation is reversed? Atheists are the first to scream foul!

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

What is at issue is where an employee is allowed to express protected religious beliefs. They banned it entirely - therein lies the rub. That included lunch hour. That included coffee shops ... across the street. That included talking with people who might have inquired about 'Jesus'. That included apparently rebutting atheists how besmirched 'Jesus'. THAT was the issue here.

Yeah, and it shouldn't have been. It should have been the disruption regardless of content.

They could have banned him from talking about religion with people who complained, correct?

They could have confined the 'evangelical' talk to lunch hours.

They could have allowed him to set up a place in work to speak with those who wished it (allowing others who did not want to listen to skip).

Instead, they banned it entirely. In doing so, the violated protections of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Of course, when the situation is reversed? Atheists are the first to scream foul!

Of note, the most extremist atheists on this forum are the first to abandon even the pretense of Constitutionality and protected speech when its speech that they disagree with. Hypocrites.

Actually it's more often a cause of stupid theists like you not understanding when and where that applies.

So talking about Jesus should be banned,

And that's why you're stupid. Because I've pretty much been saying the exact opposite this entire thread.

Moron.

but being a douchey internet troll who calls people stupid as if its a valid rebuttal should be encouraged.

I'm not calling you stupid as if it's a valid rebuttal. I'm calling you stupid as if it's a valid observation.

And I'm doing that because I have tacitly been DEFENDING the right for him to express his faith. I AGREE that the company shouldn't have discriminated based on it being an issue of faith BECAUSE faith is part of a protected form of expression.

And yet you, like an A$$HOLE, decide to make the conversation about something else entirely.

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

What is at issue is where an employee is allowed to express protected religious beliefs. They banned it entirely - therein lies the rub. That included lunch hour. That included coffee shops ... across the street. That included talking with people who might have inquired about 'Jesus'. That included apparently rebutting atheists how besmirched 'Jesus'. THAT was the issue here.

Yeah, and it shouldn't have been. It should have been the disruption regardless of content.

They could have banned him from talking about religion with people who complained, correct?

They could have confined the 'evangelical' talk to lunch hours.

They could have allowed him to set up a place in work to speak with those who wished it (allowing others who did not want to listen to skip).

Instead, they banned it entirely. In doing so, the violated protections of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Of course, when the situation is reversed? Atheists are the first to scream foul!

Of note, the most extremist atheists on this forum are the first to abandon even the pretense of Constitutionality and protected speech when its speech that they disagree with. Hypocrites.

Actually it's more often a cause of stupid theists like you not understanding when and where that applies.

So talking about Jesus should be banned,

And that's why you're stupid. Because I've pretty much been saying the exact opposite this entire thread.

Moron.

but being a douchey internet troll who calls people stupid as if its a valid rebuttal should be encouraged.

I'm not calling you stupid as if it's a valid rebuttal. I'm calling you stupid as if it's a valid observation.

And I'm doing that because I have tacitly been DEFENDING the right for him to express his faith. I AGREE that the company shouldn't have discriminated based on it being an issue of faith BECAUSE faith is part of a protected form of expression.

And yet you, like an A$$HOLE, decide to make the conversation about something else entirely.

Hypocrites and douches.

Wankerism fine, talking about Jesus is not. Gotcha athtards.

You are calling me stupid because that is all you got, resorting to acting like a total clod.

Faith was only the issue because it was projected in such a way to cause the disruption. The disruption is what the problem actually was. If the person wasn't causing a disruption, there wouldn't have been an issue.

What is at issue is where an employee is allowed to express protected religious beliefs. They banned it entirely - therein lies the rub. That included lunch hour. That included coffee shops ... across the street. That included talking with people who might have inquired about 'Jesus'. That included apparently rebutting atheists how besmirched 'Jesus'. THAT was the issue here.

Yeah, and it shouldn't have been. It should have been the disruption regardless of content.

They could have banned him from talking about religion with people who complained, correct?

They could have confined the 'evangelical' talk to lunch hours.

They could have allowed him to set up a place in work to speak with those who wished it (allowing others who did not want to listen to skip).

Instead, they banned it entirely. In doing so, the violated protections of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Of course, when the situation is reversed? Atheists are the first to scream foul!

Of note, the most extremist atheists on this forum are the first to abandon even the pretense of Constitutionality and protected speech when its speech that they disagree with. Hypocrites.

Actually it's more often a cause of stupid theists like you not understanding when and where that applies.

So talking about Jesus should be banned,

And that's why you're stupid. Because I've pretty much been saying the exact opposite this entire thread.

Moron.

but being a douchey internet troll who calls people stupid as if its a valid rebuttal should be encouraged.

I'm not calling you stupid as if it's a valid rebuttal. I'm calling you stupid as if it's a valid observation.

And I'm doing that because I have tacitly been DEFENDING the right for him to express his faith. I AGREE that the company shouldn't have discriminated based on it being an issue of faith BECAUSE faith is part of a protected form of expression.

And yet you, like an A$$HOLE, decide to make the conversation about something else entirely.

Hypocrites and douches.

Wankerism fine, talking about Jesus is not. Gotcha athtards.

You are calling me stupid because that is all you got, resorting to acting like a total clod.

This is phucking disgusting. Replace his faith with belief that aliens are coming to "probe" all of us (equal evidence as gawd), and he would have been fired much sooner. People are afraid of offending religion/faith. There was no discrimination.

Does not this work rule affect the religious in a discriminatory way?

No, it doesn't. They don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the employer any more than the employer does on the employee. If the employee flatly refuses to obey his superiors simply because his religious "convictions" compel him to approach other with the purpose of proselytizing, he deserves to be fired. Otherwise, he is being given license to impose his beliefs and their necessary consequence upon his employer.

The $100,000 penalty was $100,000 too much. No, an employee does NOT have the right to force his employer to accept whatever behavior they wish to display, in the name of faith. This is just sick.

How about wearable religious symbols, should those be allowed in the workplace?

I don't see why not. That's not an imposition. Anyone who does not like it can simply look away.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.